From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-11 12:07:21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Loki SmartPtr study: Policy orthogonality issues
> > I don't understand what you're saying. This sounds like an argument for
> > functional programming in general (all data is const) ???
> >
> > Doesn't the shared_array as owning iterator make sense to you?
>
> The idea is that shared_array points to the beginning of an array
allocated
> with new.
Clearly, that's not the idea if you want to allow pointer arithmetic on it.
> Then, you don't want to alter it because the restructor will call
> delete[] on the pointee object, which must be there.
yes, the pointer to the base of the array must be available somewhere. Peter
is storing it in the count object.